Reviewed by:

• Perceptions of Sustainability in Heritage Studies ed. by Marie-Theres Albert, and; Going Beyond: Perceptions of Sustainability in Heritage Studies No. 2 ed. by Marie-Theres Albert et al.
• Susan M. Ross (bio)

It has been argued that urban retrofitting for decarbonization may paradoxically have a role in propagating a global repair paradigm, whose constant devaluation of the built environment better serves capitalist models of redevelopment than sustainability.¹ Sourcing new materials through mining and harvesting to meet retrofit standards of the West can also be related to the destruction of natural and cultural heritage in the global South. To be meaningful, concepts of sustainability and related goals must address such contradictions and gaps.² In 2015 and 2017, two consecutive volumes of the DeGruyter–Springer Heritage Studies series were dedicated to linking perceptions of sustainability in Europe and well beyond. This review responds to these two edited volumes, to help understand how the international focus on sustainability in heritage studies is providing insights into broader ambitions for sustaining the historic environment. Pivotal policy developments that inform this discourse are important to understand, so the review begins with a look at this context.

With the United Nations' 2015 launch of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, seventeen wide-ranging sustainable development goals (SDGs) were defined for the entire world.³ Bridging the pillars of society, economy and ecology, the goals range from eliminating poverty and hunger, to providing affordable and clean energy, clean water and sanitation for all, to protecting all forms of life on land and below water.⁴ The so-called developed countries are called upon to repair global problems they have generated through unsustainable development, with their over-consumption and resource inequity constituting global imbalances. Assessing how well retrofitting the built environment meets the United Nations' goals of sustainable development (SD) can thus be a globally responsible way of formulating associated objectives and metrics.

For those focused on the sustainability of buildings and their uses, systems and materials, connections are evident to SD goals for more efficient and equitable use of resources and perhaps also reducing impact on land and water.⁵ The reuse [End Page 147] and repair of the built environment has, however not until recently, been recognized as essential to social and cultural sustainability, except as part of conserving the historic cities, settlements and landscapes of value to multiple peoples. SDG no. 11, to "create sustainable cities and communities," is a point of reference for this shift to address protection of both cultural and natural heritage. Building rehabilitation, however, and specifically the discourse on retrofitting for decarbonization and energy efficiency, mainly falls under ecological and economic sustainability. On the other hand, addressing gaps in social and cultural sustainability is important in advancing the integration of urban, landscape and cultural heritage into sustainability paradigms, and localizing the goals in diverse challenging contexts. Arguably these advances in integrating sustainability theory and policy in planning for historic environments are now useful to examine to expand the aims of retrofitting, to address, among its other goals, the objectives of social inclusion, peace and reciprocal respect between diverse cultures, and recognizing Indigenous and human rights.

There is some deserved skepticism about the capacity of those pursuing these SDGs to enact real change within a world that has so little capacity to resolve long-term conflicts.⁶ Nonetheless, it is now broadly recognized that there is a need for the conservation of the built environment to become more integrated within the global SD project through sustainable preservation practices. The official discourse of how heritage conservation relates to sustainability has expanded continuously in the last decade, with two key policies marking this growth: the 2011 UNESCO Recommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL), and the 2015 Policy on the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention. Both of these guidelines reflect a growing conversation about environmental, social, cultural, and economic sustainability in the World Heritage context...

审核人：

• 遗产研究中对可持续性的看法编辑。玛丽-特蕾丝·阿尔伯特，以及；超越：遗产研究中对可持续性的看法，第 2版。Marie-Theres Albert 等人。
• 苏珊·M·罗斯（简历）

有人认为，为脱碳而进行的城市改造可能自相矛盾地在传播全球修复范式方面发挥了作用，其对建筑环境的持续贬值比可持续性更好地服务于资本主义的重建模式。¹通过采矿和收获来采购新材料以满足西方的改造标准也可能与全球南方自然和文化遗产的破坏有关。为了有意义，可持续性和相关目标的概念必须解决这些矛盾和差距。²2015 年和 2017 年，连续两卷 DeGruyter-Springer 遗产研究系列致力于将欧洲及其他地区的可持续发展观念联系起来。这篇评论是对这两卷编辑的回应，以帮助了解国际上对遗产研究可持续性的关注如何为更广泛的历史环境可持续发展雄心提供洞察力。了解本次讨论的关键政策发展很重要，因此本次审查首先要了解这一背景。

随着联合国 2015 年启动2030 年可持续发展议程，为全世界确定了 17 个范围广泛的可持续发展目标 (SDG)。³跨越社会、经济和生态的支柱，目标范围从消除贫困和饥饿，到为所有人提供负担得起的清洁能源、清洁水和卫生设施，再到保护陆地和水下的所有生命形式。⁴所谓发达国家有责任修复它们在不可持续发展中产生的全球性问题，它们的过度消费和资源不公平构成了全球失衡。因此，评估改造建筑环境在多大程度上满足联合国可持续发展 (SD) 的目标可以成为制定相关目标和指标的全球负责任的方式。

对于那些关注建筑物及其用途、系统和材料的可持续性的人来说，与可持续发展目标的联系是显而易见的，即更有效、更公平地使用资源，也许还可以减少对土地和水的影响。⁵重用[完第 147 页]然而，建筑环境的修复直到最近才被认为对社会和文化的可持续性至关重要，除非它是保护历史城市、定居点和对多民族具有价值的景观的一部分。可持续发展目标编号 11，“创建可持续的城市和社区”是这一转变解决文化和自然遗产保护问题的参考点。然而，建筑修复，特别是关于脱碳和能源​​效率改造的讨论，主要属于生态和经济可持续性。另一方面，解决社会和文化可持续性方面的差距对于推动将城市、景观和文化遗产融入可持续性范式以及在各种具有挑战性的环境中实现目标本地化非常重要。

对于那些追求这些可持续发展目标的人是否有能力在一个解决长期冲突的能力如此之弱的世界中实施真正的变革，值得怀疑。⁶尽管如此，现在人们普遍认识到，有必要通过可持续保护实践将建筑环境的保护更加融入全球可持续发展项目。在过去十年中，关于遗产保护如何与可持续性相关的官方讨论不断扩大，两项关键政策标志着这一增长：2011 年联合国教科文组织关于历史城市景观(HUL) 的建议和 2015年可持续发展一体化政策透视世界遗产公约的进程. 这两项指南都反映了关于世界遗产背景下环境、社会、文化和经济可持续性的日益增长的对话……